UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 19, 2012
DISH NETWORK, L.L.C., ET AL.,
SONICVIEW USA, INC., ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY
ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT [DOC. 183]
Pending before the Court is Defendants Sonicview USA, Inc., Roberto Sanz, Danial Pierce, Alan Phu, and Duane Bernard's ex parte application for a temporary extension of the automatic stay preventing enforcement of the summary-judgment order against them pending the outcome of anticipated post-judgment motions. Plaintiffs DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., and NagraStar L.L.C. oppose.
The factors governing the issuance of a stay under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b) are: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies." Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). The first factor, requiring a strong likelihood of success, is the "most important". Haggard v. Curry, 631 F.3d 931, 935 (9th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, "[a]n unsecured stay is disfavored under Rule 62(b)." In re Apollo Grp. Inc. Sec. Litig., No. CV 04-2147, 2008 WL 410625, at *1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 13, 2008).
Here, Defendants argue that the first, second, and third factors favor granting the stay.*fn1
Specifically, they contend that Court did not correctly draw its inferences from the evidence presented, including undisputed evidence, and that the parties' financial status will only injure Defendants and not Plaintiffs. (Defs.' Appl. 4:21--5:3, 5:4--6:12.) In response, Plaintiffs argue that all of the factors favor denying the stay. In particular, they contend that Defendants fail to show that they are likely to succeed on the merits because they fail to identify a particular aspect the summary-judgment order that is erroneous, and Defendants merely put forth arguments previously presented to the Court. (Pls.' Opp'n 3:23--5:8.) Though the Court has reservations as to whether Defendants made a strong enough showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits, the remaining factors favor granting the stay. See Hilton, 481 U.S. at 776.
In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants' ex parte application, and hereby:
(1) STAYS the enforcement of the judgment against Defendants;
(2) ORDERS Defendants to provide a $650,000 bond to secure Plaintiffs' interest in the judgment before they file any post-judgment motions;
(3) Defendants shall file any post-judgment motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60 by July 2, 2012;
(4) Plaintiffs shall file their oppositions by July 16, 2012; and
(5) Defendants shall file their replies by July 23, 2012.
The Court will consider any of these post-judgment motions on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). Furthermore, Defendants are warned that failure to provide the bond or file a post-judgment motion by the aforementioned due date will result in an order immediately lifting this stay.
IT IS SO ORDERED.